6 ms·

Here's a more concise summary of the proposed changes: https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-changes-in-ombs-proposed https://elizabethginexi.su

Here's a more concise summary of the proposed changes: https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-changes-in-ombs-proposed https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-change... I don't think any practicing scientist of any political persuasion will think these are good for science. Science progresses by sharing knowledge openly and publicly, so others can evaluate it, criticize it, and build on it. These severe restrictions on collaboration, publication, and public communication will damage science's naturally open, merit-based culture. We will all suffer due to lost discoveries--maybe not today, but over years and decades.

wisemanwillhear 4mo ago
Why does science need to be through the government? Irrespective of the proposal, science research is just as open after this change as before so long as it's funded by private citizens who can control the channels through which they donate to this work. On the other hand, if we can't get private citizens to donate to science research, then they are not likely to vote for it either--polls don't register much of a concern from the average citizen*. I don't think most of us want to be under a dictator or go back to having a king. That means the only practical option is to act of our own volition and support science through vocal advocacy and private money. In this way, we can each donate to the research we care about the most with maximum academic freedom. * https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.asp...
- halJordan 4mo ago
  Science needs to be done through the government because of a) hire incredibly expensive science is and b) hire incredibly concentrated wealth is. The USG is quite often the only group able and willing to fund most projects.
  - SubiculumCode 4mo ago
    autocorrect is the worst, right?
- frigidwalnut 4mo ago
  Private citizens fund scientific research through their taxes. This has been the most practical way to fund science for decades.
  - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
    >Private citizen fund scientific research [under threat of prison or deadly force.] I mean I'm not inherently opposed to laws or government, but I think a lot of people need to be more measured and considerate of what they are using tax money for when it is being taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint.
    - convolvatron 4mo ago
      ignoring a gratuitous reference to use of force, absolutely. having a discussion as society about what we are funding is in fact democracy. sadly there is an issue in the sciences in that lay people may have difficulty seeing the benefit of connecting the dots. but we should try. and as flawed as it is, the adversarial system we have in the US is at least a forum for those discussion. using grep to defund grants that contain words we don't like is the exact opposite of measured and considerate. so is punishing scientists for the sin of working for a 'woke' institution. in fact all this seems extremely punitive, and not in the spirit of optimizing outcomes for costs at all. note that this policy explicitly removes the requirement to provide any kind of rationale. that sort of directly contradicts the notion that this is a measured discussion about priorities.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
    - frigidwalnut 4mo ago
      I agree. This administration is ground zero for mismanagement of funds and outright corruption. Just look at the director of the FBI and former secretary of DHS. Both have used and continue to use tax payer money for personal use. It should make every tax payer livid.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
  It was realized some time ago that having citizens decide to "donate to the research we care about" was not the most efficient way to get the most important research done. So we switched to a system where we pool our resources (taxes), and then use a somewhat complex process (described in TFA) to decide how to allocate them to possible research.
  - calvinmorrison 4mo ago
    and those taxes are distributed by our government... which is political. simple as.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
      so it's political ... so what?
      - calvinmorrison 4mo ago
        So why should any function of government be free from politics? The point of our system is so we can give feedback and adjust the system
        PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
        I don't disagree. I'm not sure what point you're responding to.
    - IAmBroom 4mo ago
      You're missing the key distinction here: not only are the seeds selected by a political body, but the active weeding of previously planted seeds is now inherently political. Both are bad, but one allows some diversity; the other produces a monoculture. A political monoculture that can be completely upended before even any useful crop is grown, given the nature of a working democracy versus the length of research projects. And yes, I'm aware that those last two words are no longer guaranteed.
- jpalawaga 4mo ago
  This is a very “taxation is theft” take. Everyone knows that many things that are not directly beneficial to society would go unfunded because humans optimize for what’s around them, and things that are self-interested. There isn’t even alignment. One person wants to fund science, the other wants to fund high speed rail, the other wants farm subsidies, one wants social security and the other wants the military. Government balances all of that together. Of course people will make value judgements about their pet interests and declare the other aspects to be better funded separately.
- fasterik 4mo ago
  Private capital is good at funding research that is likely to provide a short-term return on investment. It's not so good at funding basic research, where most of the paradigm-shifting breakthroughs come from. These provide a huge return on investment, but it nets out to society at large on time scales of decades or centuries. Contrary to what you said, there is actually quite a bit of private philanthropic funding for research, it's just that it's not evenly distributed. The vast majority of it seems to go to medical research, in particular cancer and Alzheimer's. That's obviously a good thing, but my point here is that we can't necessarily depend on private philanthropy to distribute funds optimally. https://www.cato.org/blog/governments-should-not-fund-research https://www.cato.org/blog/governments-should-not-fund-resear... I'm generally a fan of Cato and a libertarian approach to economics, but I'm still not convinced that we should be spending zero public money on basic research. I would like to see a decent amount going into mathematics and theoretical physics for example, and I doubt those fields would stay afloat on donations.
  - davebren 4mo ago
    This seems to be a good middle ground then. It allows for a way to prevent political projects getting grants under the guise of "scientific research", at least when they directly oppose the voters. I don't see any push to defund basic research, and if politicians start doing that there's at least a way for people to voice their disapproval through voting. Aside from that, so much money was wasted on Alzheimer's research based on fraud.
- kashunstva 4mo ago
  Given the apparent low levels of scientific literacy among the U.S. public, I can’t imagine their ability to discern priorities or worthwhile lines of investigation would be any more useful than a coin toss. Or worse.
- Tostino 4mo ago
  Screw that mentality. I already paid more than enough in my tax dollars.
  - Starman_Jones 4mo ago
    What do you mean by that?
    - Tostino 4mo ago
      It means I'm in the tax bracket that gets to pick up the slack for people who make way more than me but don't pay their fair share. I want a competent government who directs the funds in an appropriate way. Not one who sets up a shush fund, using my (tax) money, to pay their private army of thugs.
- scoofy 4mo ago
  It is as though you’ve never heard of game theory, much less the concept of a coordination or free rider problem. This comment reflects a level of ignorance that would make Dunning & Kruger facepalm. The idea that you compare a democratically elected government’s taxes… to that of an unelected tyrant show a complete lack of perspective.
rramadass 4mo ago
The Current Crisis: What's Happening to Science in America - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687

wisemanwillhear 4mo ago

Why does science need to be through the government? Irrespective of the proposal, science research is just as open after this change as before so long as it's funded by private citizens who can control the channels through which they donate to this work. On the other hand, if we can't get private citizens to donate to science research, then they are not likely to vote for it either--polls don't register much of a concern from the average citizen*. I don't think most of us want to be under a dictator or go back to having a king. That means the only practical option is to act of our own volition and support science through vocal advocacy and private money. In this way, we can each donate to the research we care about the most with maximum academic freedom. * https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.asp...

halJordan 4mo ago
Science needs to be done through the government because of a) hire incredibly expensive science is and b) hire incredibly concentrated wealth is. The USG is quite often the only group able and willing to fund most projects.
- SubiculumCode 4mo ago
  autocorrect is the worst, right?
frigidwalnut 4mo ago
Private citizens fund scientific research through their taxes. This has been the most practical way to fund science for decades.
- JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
  >Private citizen fund scientific research [under threat of prison or deadly force.] I mean I'm not inherently opposed to laws or government, but I think a lot of people need to be more measured and considerate of what they are using tax money for when it is being taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint.
  - convolvatron 4mo ago
    ignoring a gratuitous reference to use of force, absolutely. having a discussion as society about what we are funding is in fact democracy. sadly there is an issue in the sciences in that lay people may have difficulty seeing the benefit of connecting the dots. but we should try. and as flawed as it is, the adversarial system we have in the US is at least a forum for those discussion. using grep to defund grants that contain words we don't like is the exact opposite of measured and considerate. so is punishing scientists for the sin of working for a 'woke' institution. in fact all this seems extremely punitive, and not in the spirit of optimizing outcomes for costs at all. note that this policy explicitly removes the requirement to provide any kind of rationale. that sort of directly contradicts the notion that this is a measured discussion about priorities.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
  - frigidwalnut 4mo ago
    I agree. This administration is ground zero for mismanagement of funds and outright corruption. Just look at the director of the FBI and former secretary of DHS. Both have used and continue to use tax payer money for personal use. It should make every tax payer livid.
PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
It was realized some time ago that having citizens decide to "donate to the research we care about" was not the most efficient way to get the most important research done. So we switched to a system where we pool our resources (taxes), and then use a somewhat complex process (described in TFA) to decide how to allocate them to possible research.
- calvinmorrison 4mo ago
  and those taxes are distributed by our government... which is political. simple as.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
    so it's political ... so what?
    - calvinmorrison 4mo ago
      So why should any function of government be free from politics? The point of our system is so we can give feedback and adjust the system
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
        I don't disagree. I'm not sure what point you're responding to.
  - IAmBroom 4mo ago
    You're missing the key distinction here: not only are the seeds selected by a political body, but the active weeding of previously planted seeds is now inherently political. Both are bad, but one allows some diversity; the other produces a monoculture. A political monoculture that can be completely upended before even any useful crop is grown, given the nature of a working democracy versus the length of research projects. And yes, I'm aware that those last two words are no longer guaranteed.
jpalawaga 4mo ago
This is a very “taxation is theft” take. Everyone knows that many things that are not directly beneficial to society would go unfunded because humans optimize for what’s around them, and things that are self-interested. There isn’t even alignment. One person wants to fund science, the other wants to fund high speed rail, the other wants farm subsidies, one wants social security and the other wants the military. Government balances all of that together. Of course people will make value judgements about their pet interests and declare the other aspects to be better funded separately.
fasterik 4mo ago
Private capital is good at funding research that is likely to provide a short-term return on investment. It's not so good at funding basic research, where most of the paradigm-shifting breakthroughs come from. These provide a huge return on investment, but it nets out to society at large on time scales of decades or centuries. Contrary to what you said, there is actually quite a bit of private philanthropic funding for research, it's just that it's not evenly distributed. The vast majority of it seems to go to medical research, in particular cancer and Alzheimer's. That's obviously a good thing, but my point here is that we can't necessarily depend on private philanthropy to distribute funds optimally. https://www.cato.org/blog/governments-should-not-fund-research https://www.cato.org/blog/governments-should-not-fund-resear... I'm generally a fan of Cato and a libertarian approach to economics, but I'm still not convinced that we should be spending zero public money on basic research. I would like to see a decent amount going into mathematics and theoretical physics for example, and I doubt those fields would stay afloat on donations.
- davebren 4mo ago
  This seems to be a good middle ground then. It allows for a way to prevent political projects getting grants under the guise of "scientific research", at least when they directly oppose the voters. I don't see any push to defund basic research, and if politicians start doing that there's at least a way for people to voice their disapproval through voting. Aside from that, so much money was wasted on Alzheimer's research based on fraud.
kashunstva 4mo ago
Given the apparent low levels of scientific literacy among the U.S. public, I can’t imagine their ability to discern priorities or worthwhile lines of investigation would be any more useful than a coin toss. Or worse.
Tostino 4mo ago
Screw that mentality. I already paid more than enough in my tax dollars.
- Starman_Jones 4mo ago
  What do you mean by that?
  - Tostino 4mo ago
    It means I'm in the tax bracket that gets to pick up the slack for people who make way more than me but don't pay their fair share. I want a competent government who directs the funds in an appropriate way. Not one who sets up a shush fund, using my (tax) money, to pay their private army of thugs.
scoofy 4mo ago
It is as though you’ve never heard of game theory, much less the concept of a coordination or free rider problem. This comment reflects a level of ignorance that would make Dunning & Kruger facepalm. The idea that you compare a democratically elected government’s taxes… to that of an unelected tyrant show a complete lack of perspective.

rramadass 4mo ago

The Current Crisis: What's Happening to Science in America - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687